GWML Electification

[billbedford]

Getting back to GW electrification I have been doing a bit more timetable research for a missive to our local 'paper and found a brilliant comparison.  I'm looking at off-peak journey times and noted that in the Winter 1952/53 timetable one could do the journey on one particular train from Paddington in exactly 70 minutes (most of the others took much longer) .  Coincidentally you can do the same journey today leaving Paddington 2 minutes later and getting the same arrival time at the other end as you did in 1952.  Or putting it another way there has been a 2 minute reduction in journey time over a period of 65 years should you wish to leave London mid-morning.

 

What price electrification?

 

 

So all today's trains are faster than all of trains on 52/53, most appreciably so?

Edited February 11, 2018 by billbedford

[Zomboid]

Worth listening to some of the BBC commentators at the Winter Olympics at the moment.....

 

You sometimes think, did they really say that?

Last night: "is really hard to control things you can't control".

Insightful.

[D854_Tiger]

Getting back to GW electrification I have been doing a bit more timetable research for a missive to our local 'paper and found a brilliant comparison.  I'm looking at off-peak journey times and noted that in the Winter 1952/53 timetable one could do the journey on one particular train from Paddington in exactly 70 minutes (most of the others took much longer) .  Coincidentally you can do the same journey today leaving Paddington 2 minutes later and getting the same arrival time at the other end as you did in 1952.  Or putting it another way there has been a 2 minute reduction in journey time over a period of 65 years should you wish to leave London mid-morning.

 

What price electrification?

 

 

Back in those days, they had the concept of the express train.

 

The growth in GW commuting, thanks to the success of the HST, meant those 125 mph services became a victim of their own success and hence virtually every train having to stop virtually everywhere is the norm nowadays.

 

The IET should allow for the reintroduction of more faster limited stop services and a fifteen minute reduction in overall journey time.

 

I confidently predict this will still happen, despite the cutback electrification.

 

I confidently now duck.

[The Stationmaster]

So all today's trains are faster than all of trains on 52/53, most appreciably so?

 

Not really - in one case the journey is 2 minutes quicker than it was in 1952 (and also than it was in 1929 as it happens) which is hardly 'appreciably' quicker;.  However at other times of the day most trains are indeed 'appreciably quicker than they were in 1952' - it's just that they are slower than they were in 1963 (66 minutes then, 68 minutes now) and c.10% slower than they were in 1966/67 (62 minutes then, 68 minutes now).

Back in those days, they had the concept of the express train.

 

The growth in GW commuting, thanks to the success of the HST, meant those 125 mph services became a victim of their own success and hence virtually every train having to stop virtually everywhere is the norm nowadays.

 

The IET should allow for the reintroduction of more faster limited stop services and a fifteen minute reduction in overall journey time.

 

I confidently predict this will still happen, despite the cutback electrification.

 

I confidently now duck.

 

All no doubt pretty much the case as far as HSTs are concerned  - except that HSTs and Class 800s don't work much in the way of local services round here, especially in the off-peak periods.  As far as the times I've quoted are concerned it's either steam trains (pre 1959) or 1st Generation DMUs vs Class 387 EMUs.

 

I expect there will no doubt, in time, be some Class 800 worked peak period services offering much faster overall journey times than 68 minutes and even Class 387 worked peak period trains offer some faster journey times but i was looking at off-peak services when traffic is still pretty substantial in terms of passenger numbers.

[The Stationmaster]

One hopes that you will post a link to it, if and when they publish it.

 

 

Here's a copy of it as it currently stands - the local 'paper normally publish my letters without any sort of alteration or editing, especially if I put our local MP on the spot.

 

 

The Story of a Train Service

 

Now that electrification of most train services from Twyford to Paddington has settled in it might be an opportune time to think about the way in which the electrification and the new Electrostar trains have benefitted, or otherwise, travellers from/to Henley.

 

My principal interest is off-peak travel so I have concentrated on that, with some interesting, if not  shocking, results.  Take for example a mid-morning traveller from London to Henley who today has a train every 30 minutes giving a journey time of 68 minutes.  So I compared that first with the winter timetable of 1952/53 - steam trains all round and the 11.10 from Paddington would get you to Henley, with the change at Twyford of course, at 1220 - a journey time of 70 minutes, albeit that was unusually quick for those days.  Oddly you still have the same arrival time at Henley in the electric age - but you can actually leave Paddington a whole two minutes later; the journey time has reduced by 2 minutes over the space of 66 years!

 

Perhaps not so fair to compare those terribly old-fashioned steam trains with today’s sleek electrics which come complete with toilets, including one for the disabled, and individual seats, somewhat on the firm side, complete with armrests.  So maybe a comparison with the diesel age will help?   Yes - by 1963 the diesel trains had reduced the journey to 66 minutes on a fairly consistent basis throughout the day but comparison with the winter timetable that was in place in early 1967, a mere 51 years ago, is even more interesting.  Back then the equivalent departure left Paddington at 11.22 and arrived at Henley at 12.24 - a mere 62 minutes for a journey which now takes almost 10% longer notwithstanding the 21st century technology helping to deliver it.

 

On currently circulating information it is alas more than likely that within a couple of years Crossrail will have further transformed our journeys to/from London.  And the phrase ‘back to the past’ comes to mind as we wlll be taken back to trains with bench seats (only arranged sideways in this instance) and no toilets - let alone one for the disabled.  Together with considerably fewer seats than an 8 coach Electrostar train and no doubt an even longer drawn out journey to the parts of London many of us would wish to reach.  Oh, and I nearly forgot, Crossrail’s bloated Underground trains won’t have luggage racks either so we’ll be even nearer the early days of rail travel than folk were back in 1952.

 

With the consultation now underway for the new GWR franchise it is perhaps time for our local MPs to start rocking some boats and help to ensure that we will continue to have a proper off-peak regular interval train service.  A train service delivered by habitable Electrostar trains with full passenger facilities instead of the nonsensical things Crossrail intend to dump on us for the major part of a journey more than one hour long.

[Siberian Snooper]

Here's a copy of it as it currently stands - the local 'paper normally publish my letters without any sort of alteration or editing, especially if I put our local MP on the spot.

 

 

The Story of a Train Service[/size]

 

 

Now that electrification of most train services from Twyford to Paddington has settled in it might be an opportune time to think about the way in which the electrification and the new Electrostar trains have benefitted, or otherwise, travellers from/to Henley.

 

My principal interest is off-peak travel so I have concentrated on that, with some interesting, if not  shocking, results.  Take for example a mid-morning traveller from London to Henley who today has a train every 30 minutes giving a journey time of 68 minutes.  So I compared that first with the winter timetable of 1952/53 - steam trains all round and the 11.10 from Paddington would get you to Henley, with the change at Twyford of course, at 1220 - a journey time of 70 minutes, albeit that was unusually quick for those days.  Oddly you still have the same arrival time at Henley in the electric age - but you can actually leave Paddington a whole two minutes later; the journey time has reduced by 2 minutes over the space of 66 years!

 

Perhaps not so fair to compare those terribly old-fashioned steam trains with today’s sleek electrics which come complete with toilets, including one for the disabled, and individual seats, somewhat on the firm side, complete with armrests.  So maybe a comparison with the diesel age will help?   Yes - by 1963 the diesel trains had reduced the journey to 66 minutes on a fairly consistent basis throughout the day but comparison with the winter timetable that was in place in early 1967, a mere 51 years ago, is even more interesting.  Back then the equivalent departure left Paddington at 11.22 and arrived at Henley at 12.24 - a mere 62 minutes for a journey which now takes almost 10% longer notwithstanding the 21st century technology helping to deliver it.

 

On currently circulating information it is alas more than likely that within a couple of years Crossrail will have further transformed our journeys to/from London.  And the phrase ‘back to the past’ comes to mind as we wlll be taken back to trains with bench seats (only arranged sideways in this instance) and no toilets - let alone one for the disabled.  Together with considerably fewer seats than an 8 coach Electrostar train and no doubt an even longer drawn out journey to the parts of London many of us would wish to reach.  Oh, and I nearly forgot, Crossrail’s bloated Underground trains won’t have luggage racks either so we’ll be even nearer the early days of rail travel than folk were back in 1952.

 

With the consultation now underway for the new GWR franchise it is perhaps time for our local MPs to start rocking some boats and help to ensure that we will continue to have a proper off-peak regular interval train service.  A train service delivered by habitable Electrostar trains with full passenger facilities instead of the nonsensical things Crossrail intend to dump on us for the major part of a journey more than one hour long.

Let's hope that your mp gets his finger out.

[Zomboid]

What was the service frequency like in 1953 and 1963?

[phil-b259]

Let's hope that your mp gets his finger out.

 

IIRC The Stationmaster has said in the past that his current MP was very much a 'Party man' and not that bothered about local concerns (which may have something to do with the fact it sounds like an area where pretty much anything with a Blue rosette stuck on it would win a parliamentary election).

 

In any case, while The Stationmaster raises many valid points, the brutal truth is whats done is done and TfL / the DfT won't go back on the deals already done - mainly because shifting the burden of service provision to TfL is an excellent way of saving money.

 

I will explain...

 

Please remember that TfL is having its revenue grant from HM Treasury abolished this year. In laymans terms that means TfL has to be entirely self sufficient - and while the tube may make a profit, the same is not true of the buses, the Overground or let alone the strategic road network in the capital* - which TfL basically has to repair / maintain / refurbish from funds generated from the Tube, and in future years Crossrail revenue. Thus there is a lot of pressure for TfL to maximise revenue, and taking over as many GWR services as possible so that they can maximise the number of Elizabeth Line services through the core fits with this ethos.

 

Equally from the point of view of the DfT / HM Treasury, transferring services from GWR (where they will require subsidy) to TfL (who are expected to 'self fund') will help the finances (particularly as the 'massive Crossrail revenues' can be used to justify the removal of the revue support grant).

 

* which includes the likes of the A40, A4, A406, A10, A12, A316, A3, A23, A205, A20, A2, etc - oh and the A13 with its high DBFO payments thanks to the late 1990s upgrades.

Edited February 12, 2018 by phil-b259

[Coryton]

 

Please remember that TfL is having its revenue grant from HM Treasury abolished this year. In laymans terms that means TfL has to be entirely self sufficient - and while the tube may make a profit, the same is not true of the buses, the Overground or let alone the strategic road network in the capital* - which TfL basically has to repair / maintain / refurbish from funds generated from the Tube, and in future years Crossrail revenue.

 

 

 

Interesting, given that outside London bus services mostly run at a profit...or not at all.

 

And if public transport is supposed to be generating the revenue to repair roads I would say something is very, very wrong.

[The Stationmaster]

What was the service frequency like in 1953 and 1963?

 

Excellent point.  In 1953 it was somewhat hit & miss but in 1963 and more so 1966/67 it was basically hourly with additional trains during the peaks which provided in some hours a total of 3 trains in each direction on the branch.  The latest service on the branch is half-hourly but that was only stepped up from an hourly off-peak interval last year after a long campaign by the local user group, it also has a regular pattern connection with trains to/from Paddngton.   The branch trains are now supposed to be a 3 car 165 set (but today it was only a 2 car I noticed when out shopping) and loadings are fairly high even off-peak during most of the day.  But if we go back to 1966/67 it was a couple of single power cars while in 1953 it was usually a 2 coach formation with stock varying between 20 and 50 years old ( a 'concertina' ex slip coach was a regular at one time in one of the brach sets) or an ex GWR diesel railcar.

 

Our local MP is a pretty useless specimen as far as this end of his constituency is concerned and is treated with disdain by the editor of the local 'paper.  There is another constituency which covers part of the branch and the MP there has been fairly helpful in the past and I think the current half hourly interval, which now serves all stations on the branch instead of having a skip-stop pattern, might well be due to her exerting a bit of pressure on NR via DfT to get the Timetable Planning Rules changed (especially as the station which suffered from skipped stops is the one in her constituency) but she is rather busy with Brexit at present although she is well involved in constituency matters.

[royaloak]

Not really - in one case the journey is 2 minutes quicker than it was in 1952 (and also than it was in 1929 as it happens) which is hardly 'appreciably' quicker;.  However at other times of the day most trains are indeed 'appreciably quicker than they were in 1952' - it's just that they are slower than they were in 1963 (66 minutes then, 68 minutes now) and c.10% slower than they were in 1966/67 (62 minutes then, 68 minutes now).

What about all the other cases?

 

Taking the one fastest train from then and comparing it to every train today is hardly representative is it!

[The Stationmaster]

What about all the other cases?

 

Taking the one fastest train from then and comparing it to every train today is hardly representative is it!

 

I really wish at times you would actually read what other people write before picking out a small part of it which doesn't suit your argument. (and 'argument' is often exactly the right word I'm afraid).

 

BTW before you blow your top at facing facts instead of what suits you to think others said or posted I shall be reporting this post so you needn't bother.

[royaloak]

I really wish at times you would actually read what other people write before picking out a small part of it which doesn't suit your argument. (and 'argument' is often exactly the right word I'm afraid).

 

BTW before you blow your top at facing facts instead of what suits you to think others said or posted I shall be reporting this post so you needn't bother.

I did read the whole post thanks, I was just highlighting the, well, highlighted bit!

 

BTW I detest 'headline' trains because they are not really suitable on todays crowded railways and they dont really provide a useful service to the passengers, just the PR department.

 

You do like to pick fault with the 'modern' railway, not that its difficult, but picking on one train to 'make a point of how things are no better' when in actual fact there are far more services and 95% of them are quicker than the comparable services despite your 'one particular service' does you no favours.

 

Unfortunately the regulations get tighter year on year which is one of the reasons things are more expensive to get done today than they were 'in your day', we are running more services than we ever have, the trains are getting heavier, both of these facts put more strain on the infrastructure, services also run later at night and earlier in the morning so the window for maintenance gets smaller and smaller, then we add in all the pep talks before anyone can go on the line which makes the maintenance window even smaller and it isnt difficult to see why the track is getting worse.

[The Stationmaster]

I did read the whole post thanks, I was just highlighting the, well, highlighted bit!

 

BTW I detest 'headline' trains because they are not really suitable on todays crowded railways and they dont really provide a useful service to the passengers, just the PR department.

 

You do like to pick fault with the 'modern' railway, not that its difficult, but picking on one train to 'make a point of how things are no better' when in actual fact there are far more services and 95% of them are quicker than the comparable services despite your 'one particular service' does you no favours.

 

Unfortunately the regulations get tighter year on year which is one of the reasons things are more expensive to get done today than they were 'in your day', we are running more services than we ever have, the trains are getting heavier, both of these facts put more strain on the infrastructure, services also run later at night and earlier in the morning so the window for maintenance gets smaller and smaller, then we add in all the pep talks before anyone can go on the line which makes the maintenance window even smaller and it isnt difficult to see why the track is getting worse.

 

As a matter of historic fact 'the Regulations' are no tighter now than they were in my day (not that 'my day' is entirely past as it happens) and indeed laws relating to safety aren't much different either.  In fact some parts of Regulations are now more relaxed, or no longer even exist compared with, say, 25 years ago although the same cannot necessarily be said of parts of the Rule Book produced by RSSB.

 

Anyway if you have bothered to read all of it you will know that the main off-peak pattern service trains now offer lengthened journey times compared with the 1960s - and that is, as I wrote, a service and not one train.  Read in context.

[jim.snowdon]

Unfortunately the regulations get tighter year on year which is one of the reasons things are more expensive to get done today than they were 'in your day', we are running more services than we ever have, the trains are getting heavier, both of these facts put more strain on the infrastructure, services also run later at night and earlier in the morning so the window for maintenance gets smaller and smaller, then we add in all the pep talks before anyone can go on the line which makes the maintenance window even smaller and it isnt difficult to see why the track is getting worse.

The "regulations" making it more difficult to get things done are very largely of the railway's own making, frequently as a consequence of higher authority reducing the perceived risk by preventing things from being done rather than accepting the need to employ staff (contractors) with the capability to be properly trained in how to sensibly assess and manage risk.

 

Jim

[Northroader]

I see that the steelwork is now installed all the way through Swindon, masts, crossbeams, and brackets, and the smaller sticky out and dangly bits with the insulators have reached about level with Pressed Steel. Likewise in the Steventon area, which makes me wonder if a permanently “dead” span will be placed in under the bridge?

[St. Simon]

 Likewise in the Steventon area, which makes me wonder if a permanently “dead” span will be placed in under the bridge?

 

Hi,

 

I've just been looking at the OLE GA Drawings for Steventon Bridge, there will be live wires beneath the bridge.

 

Simon

[royaloak]

I see that the steelwork is now installed all the way through Swindon, masts, crossbeams, and brackets, and the smaller sticky out and dangly bits with the insulators have reached about level with Pressed Steel. Likewise in the Steventon area, which makes me wonder if a permanently “dead” span will be placed in under the bridge?

Please read back about the problems at the bridge, it has nothing to do with clearance for the wires!

[royaloak]

Hi,

 

I've just been looking at the OLE GA Drawings for Steventon Bridge, there will be live wires beneath the bridge.

 

Simon

As was always the case.

[St. Simon]

Please read back about the problems at the bridge, it has nothing to do with clearance for the wires!

 

Hi,

 

Whilst the problem is not clearance for the wires to be installed, the clearance of the wires under the bridge is a problem.

 

Plus, the bridge is only half the problem at Steventon...

 

Simon

[Pandora]

Hi,

 

Whilst the problem is not clearance for the wires to be installed, the clearance of the wires under the bridge is a problem.

 

Plus, the bridge is only half the problem at Steventon...

 

Simon

If my thinking is accurate, the problem for the overhead is a bridge and a level crossing in close  succession, the  required change in height of the contact wire from bridge clearance settings to level crossing clearance settings and vice versa exceeds the physical capabilities of the pantograph suspension  when the train  running at 125 mph line speed

Edited February 16, 2018 by Pandora

[royaloak]

If my thinking is accurate, the problem for the overhead is a bridge and a level crossing in close  succession, the  required change in height of the contact wire from bridge clearance settings to level crossing clearance settings and vice versa exceeds the physical capabilities of the pantograph suspension  when the train  running at 125 mph line speed

Hence the 60 restriction which will be in force for electric trains with pantographs raised.

[royaloak]

Hi,

 

Whilst the problem is not clearance for the wires to be installed, the clearance of the wires under the bridge is a problem.

I know what the problem is but even I am confused by this ^^^ statement.

[jjb1970]

I know what the problem is but even I am confused by this ^^^ statement.

I'm glad you said that, I was going to but was worried it was just me being a bit thick and that it made perfect sense to everybody else.

[St. Simon]

If my thinking is accurate, the problem for the overhead is a bridge and a level crossing in close  succession, the  required change in height of the contact wire from bridge clearance settings to level crossing clearance settings and vice versa exceeds the physical capabilities of the pantograph suspension  when the train  running at 125 mph line speed

 

That is part of the problem, but not the cause of enforcing the speed restriction.

 

I know what the problem is but even I am confused by this ^^^ statement.

 

Sorry what I meant was that there is room underneath the Bridge to install the wires, there is not enough room under the bridge to allow the wires to be used at 125mph, only at 60mph.

 

Simon